3 ms·

It's important to note that the author seems to be an anticapitalist; hence trespassing becomes a non-violent form of protest against the system he despises. W

It's important to note that the author seems to be an anticapitalist; hence trespassing becomes a non-violent form of protest against the system he despises. Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance).

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
"Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance)" Which means they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULD be protesting the system. It's easy to criticize when you're not on the inside. I suggested an article to a colleague of mine. He was recently complaining about stale wage growth, and the article I suggested was showing reasons for of wage growth stagnation. He simply dismissed it by saying "yeah, but the person who wrote it is probably on $200k". End of story, point invalidated by privilege... WTF is that attitude? The overwhelming majority of voices you can hear are those in a position of privilege, even in the age of the Internet. A long-form article like this one isn't going to come out of rando ne'er-do-well xchan channel. Speak out from a non-privileged position: Pfft, work harder slacker Speak out from a position of privilege: Pfft, your words mean nothing from that ivory tower. Zero sum. That is not the way forward.
- 65267ddc 7y ago
  No. Poor people want capital. Any rich asshole who criticize capitalism (not corporatism or state capitalism) is utterly despised by the poor -- and rightly so.
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    Poor capitalists want capital. To be fair to the -ism's, and unhelpfully flippant: Poor socialists want capitalism or actual socialism Poor communists want bread
- oceanplexian 7y ago
  I guess I'm old fashioned in that I care about the content and character of what people have to say and not where it is coming from. It could come from a billionaire, a gay man, a woman, a poor person, whoever. In fact the less I know about your background the better, so that it might not bias or color my opinion (Seems to be the exact opposite these days.) Growing up I thought the Internet would be a great leveler. Anyone with a computer could anonymously make a point about something. But something changed around 2005ish; websites started requiring real names, social networks became about cementing existing social connections instead of creating new ones (For example compare the days of LiveJournal to Facebook) Most online entertainment is simply re-creating television. A few "influencers" and a lot of passive consumers. Which is sad and disappointing because everyone has the potential to create something that others would be interested in, even if the audience is small and you might never be famous doing it.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    People care about the person it comes from because of so many calculating posts. You'll see a single entity argue against regulation that hurts them because "regulation is bad" and then later argue for regulation that helps them because "we need to set boundaries on what people can do." If you can get X% of the population to support repealing any regulation and a different X% of the population to support passing any regulation, and Y% of the population doesn't care about regulations that don't directly affect them, then the unprincipled will get exactly the set of regulations they want, so long as X+Y > 50.
- archi42 7y ago
  I think you misunderstood me there (or maybe I shouldn't have posted this in a hurry before leaving for work? Is "ironic" maybe not the word that expresses what I think?). Anyway, I did not claim that his point was invalid - in fact I think that we live in a deeply unfair world and all of us who are on the "richer end" can be quite happy about this. To be safe: No, this does NOT mean poverty in rich countries would be a non-problem. Unlike your friend, I would not dismiss the authors critique only because he's on the lucky end. It's just that I find it ironic that he expresses a very strong anti-capitalistic tendency (which is a valid opinion to hold!) and takes advantage of his luck by traveling (which also okay with me, sans environmental impact). When I wrote this, there were many comments along "That's why we can't have nice things", "If everyone would do that", "It's still trespassing", "You shouldn't do that, it gives a bad impression of Urbexing",... - and my primary point (first paragraph was) that, in the end, what he suggests is a form of non-violent protest against capitalism. And in my opinion, much like [peaceful] demonstrations, this is a totally valid thing to do.
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    No worries. I was definitely viewing your comment through the lens of the "privileged dismissal" example I gave in my comment. We cool brah :)

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

"Which is ironic, because he seems to be on the richer end of it (eg a white westerner who can afford intercontinental travel, on a job with a healthy work/life balance)" Which means they're exactly the sort of person who SHOULD be protesting the system. It's easy to criticize when you're not on the inside. I suggested an article to a colleague of mine. He was recently complaining about stale wage growth, and the article I suggested was showing reasons for of wage growth stagnation. He simply dismissed it by saying "yeah, but the person who wrote it is probably on $200k". End of story, point invalidated by privilege... WTF is that attitude? The overwhelming majority of voices you can hear are those in a position of privilege, even in the age of the Internet. A long-form article like this one isn't going to come out of rando ne'er-do-well xchan channel. Speak out from a non-privileged position: Pfft, work harder slacker Speak out from a position of privilege: Pfft, your words mean nothing from that ivory tower. Zero sum. That is not the way forward.

65267ddc 7y ago
No. Poor people want capital. Any rich asshole who criticize capitalism (not corporatism or state capitalism) is utterly despised by the poor -- and rightly so.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  Poor capitalists want capital. To be fair to the -ism's, and unhelpfully flippant: Poor socialists want capitalism or actual socialism Poor communists want bread
oceanplexian 7y ago
I guess I'm old fashioned in that I care about the content and character of what people have to say and not where it is coming from. It could come from a billionaire, a gay man, a woman, a poor person, whoever. In fact the less I know about your background the better, so that it might not bias or color my opinion (Seems to be the exact opposite these days.) Growing up I thought the Internet would be a great leveler. Anyone with a computer could anonymously make a point about something. But something changed around 2005ish; websites started requiring real names, social networks became about cementing existing social connections instead of creating new ones (For example compare the days of LiveJournal to Facebook) Most online entertainment is simply re-creating television. A few "influencers" and a lot of passive consumers. Which is sad and disappointing because everyone has the potential to create something that others would be interested in, even if the audience is small and you might never be famous doing it.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  People care about the person it comes from because of so many calculating posts. You'll see a single entity argue against regulation that hurts them because "regulation is bad" and then later argue for regulation that helps them because "we need to set boundaries on what people can do." If you can get X% of the population to support repealing any regulation and a different X% of the population to support passing any regulation, and Y% of the population doesn't care about regulations that don't directly affect them, then the unprincipled will get exactly the set of regulations they want, so long as X+Y > 50.
archi42 7y ago
I think you misunderstood me there (or maybe I shouldn't have posted this in a hurry before leaving for work? Is "ironic" maybe not the word that expresses what I think?). Anyway, I did not claim that his point was invalid - in fact I think that we live in a deeply unfair world and all of us who are on the "richer end" can be quite happy about this. To be safe: No, this does NOT mean poverty in rich countries would be a non-problem. Unlike your friend, I would not dismiss the authors critique only because he's on the lucky end. It's just that I find it ironic that he expresses a very strong anti-capitalistic tendency (which is a valid opinion to hold!) and takes advantage of his luck by traveling (which also okay with me, sans environmental impact). When I wrote this, there were many comments along "That's why we can't have nice things", "If everyone would do that", "It's still trespassing", "You shouldn't do that, it gives a bad impression of Urbexing",... - and my primary point (first paragraph was) that, in the end, what he suggests is a form of non-violent protest against capitalism. And in my opinion, much like [peaceful] demonstrations, this is a totally valid thing to do.
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  No worries. I was definitely viewing your comment through the lens of the "privileged dismissal" example I gave in my comment. We cool brah :)